Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Joey wrote:...which is irrelevant because it's a fake.

Dude, we get your opinion on the matter.

Thank you for it.

You don't need to respond to every single post with 'nuh-uh it's a fake'.

Well I can see these fake rules dominating discussion around here in a week or two.
Just saying.

Joey wrote:Well I can see these fake rules dominating discussion around here in a week or two.
Just saying.

And your proof for the rules being fake is...?

Joey wrote:Well I can see these fake rules dominating discussion around here in a week or two.
Just saying.

It annoys me that there a billion threads on it as well, but it is better than the standard junk that get lots of threads.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Joey wrote:Well I can see these fake rules dominating discussion around here in a week or two.
Just saying.

And your proof for the rules being fake is...?

The piss-poor quality of the literature, the jumbled and complicated rules structure, the disjointed syntax of the rules, a top secret pdf of a multi-billion pound company's top secret apparently being handed out to anyone, & cetra.
I will bet you all the money I have that it's a fake.

pretre wrote:

Joey wrote:Well I can see these fake rules dominating discussion around here in a week or two.
Just saying.

It annoys me that there a billion threads on it as well, but it is better than the standard junk that get lots of threads.

True. Who cares what your favourite primarch is, I don't.

pretre wrote:
You don't need to respond to every single post with 'nuh-uh it's a fake'.

Why not? There's about 20 people now just going "yuh-huh, it's real."

Joey wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Joey wrote:Well I can see these fake rules dominating discussion around here in a week or two.
Just saying.

And your proof for the rules being fake is...?

The piss-poor quality of the literature, the jumbled and complicated rules structure, the disjointed syntax of the rules, a top secret pdf of a multi-billion pound company's top secret apparently being handed out to anyone, & cetra.
I will bet you all the money I have that it's a fake.

GW is known for poor quality literature and rules writing. besides, this would be a rough draft. the finer details wouldn't be hashed out yet.

And PDFs of GW's new material often get leaked.


Your arguments for its fakeness are invalid because GW is known for those very things.

If they are indeed the new rules (and I make the point that i'm seriously sceptical) then I think they're going to cause some large shifts in strategy.

MC's will become a very, very fine strategic instrument that are going to need some clever play to use effectively.. even more so than they are now (with the exception of when in great numbers, aka Tyranids).

For example.. it's going to reduce the frequency by which a full assault unit will be worn down by shooting BEFORE it get's to attack, meaning they'll become far more effective but at the same time shooting has become a far more diverse part of the game meaning I think you're going to see way more clever uses and compilations of weaponry in that department.

New dynamics with Psykers look interesting, the ability to attempt a battle of wills with other psykers is long overdue.

Obviously the mech mass will be less effective as vehicles are perhaps a little more tolerant but their passengers are more susceptible to effects now.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Joey wrote:Well I can see these fake rules dominating discussion around here in a week or two.
Just saying.

And your proof for the rules being fake is...?

That's the old burden of truth rubbish. GW have not said it's theirs ergo the only true source of confirmation have not done so... ERGO if you wish to say it's real the burden of proof is yours. It's the whole God's real because you can't prove it's not...all.... over.... again.....

No, we can't prove it's fake... but we don't have too because the people who actually have the authority to say yay or nay are still out on it (like the G-man if he exist's). You have to prove it's real.

Semper wrote:
No, we can't prove it's fake... but we don't have too because the people who actually have the authority to say yay or nay are still out on it (like the G-man if he exist's). You have to prove it's real.

No, if you claim it's not real, you need to back that up. Mind you, inability to do so isn't synonymous with the stuff being genuine.

I can't just go about claiming that God DOESN'T exist, because I can't prove it. On the other hand, this is not proof of his existance, either.

I'm fairy sure it isn't a fake, although the term 'jink' initially struck me as being derogatory. Too much effort. It's really consistent too.

The phases were switched up? I didn't see that, although I really just looked at the weapon types, as I was too busy to read through 120 some-odd pages at that time. I heard it was predicted a while back, although I took it with a pound of salt.

Samus_aran115 wrote:I'm fairy sure it isn't a fake, although the term 'jink' initially struck me as being derogatory. Too much effort. It's really consistent too.

Jink has been around for quite some time in 40k.

We have been told its a leaked PDF of the 6th edition rules. The layout and writing jives with GW's style.

Ergo we have circumstantial evidence that it is most likely genuine. Therefore the burden of proof is on those saying its a fake.

Besides, this discussion assumes that it is genuine. I think we all are aware it could be fake, but there is enough evidence to suggest authenticity that we can safely assume its real. Hence we are discussing it as if it was real, and the implications.


Anyway, did anyone see what happens to passengers of transports if they blow up/wreck? I couldn't find that section. the changes there could alter the Mech meta.

IMO, it seems like an experimental copy of the rules given to GW staff members, by the language and style of certain parts. It's meant to sound familiar, I think.

Or....


Nobody has to prove anything (or really can at this point). Talk about the rules all you want. What affect they would have, if you like them or not, etc. But the reality is we probably won't know for sure what this is until maybe a month or so before 6th hits the shelves. I think it's a bit silly to start running threads in YMDC, or in the tactics section about them, as even if they are real, we have no idea what, if anything, will change between now and release.

Grey Templar wrote:We have been told its a leaked PDF of the 6th edition rules. The layout and writing jives with GW's style.

Quotes taken entirely at random, that's how widespread they are:
"The ammendments presented here take always presedence"
"As always, your feedback is much appreciated" what?!?!
Oh and the "thunderfire cannon"...with a Weapon Skill.
Seems like someone's trying to emulate the GW hyper-friendly writing style, but not very well.
There's also no mention of the "Large Vehicle" special rule which we were pretty certain would be in the new rulebook.
And there's a load of super-complicated stuff that dakkanite neckbeards enjoy but most normal people don't.
So yeah I'd say it's very unlikely to be genuine.

There's no mention of a Thunderfire Cannon with a WS anywhere I can find it (i.e. anywhere the search function can).

http://www.imperiusdominatus.com/2012/01/proof-that-leaked-6th-rules-are-fake.html

They say it's proof, but I have no idea where this proof has come from and nobody has clarified it.

Leaving aside the question of its authenticity (of which I too have my doubts), the question I find myself asking is how they managed to write the 'Evasion' rules so badly and clumsily.

Seriously, all that was needed to reintroduce to-hit modifiers and do away with cover saves was a single table, with abilities affecting cover saves causing a column shift ether right or left.

bedeporter wrote:http://www.imperiusdominatus.com/2012/01/proof-that-leaked-6th-rules-are-fake.html

They say it's proof, but I have no idea where this proof has come from and nobody has clarified it.

In acrobat/reader, go to file > Properties for the file version.

DarknessEternal wrote:

ceku wrote:Honestly, to say that this is fake is quite absurd. The logistics behind why any one would take the time and effort to make such an elaborate ruleset and make it at such a high quality is completely off. But of course thats just imo.

I single handedly created a 1200 page document of rules for D&D back when I was playing that. This "leak" is pretty lightweight and could easily be some one's wishlist.

I don't believe you, as 1200 pages is longer than Atlus Shrugged, and nobody in their right mind would ever produce a book for the sole purpose of ensuring that nobody would ever want to read it, ever.

Joey wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Joey wrote:Well I can see these fake rules dominating discussion around here in a week or two.
Just saying.

And yet you still chose to open up this thread. People who hate the water should not spend their time at the beach trying to push the tide back with their hands.

I am slightly bemused by why some folks are so eager to shout it down and make such a noise about it being fake. If its fake, so be it, we'll all know soon enough anyways and pretty much everyone in these threads have been saying they realise it maybe fake, but in their minds it seems just as likely they are real. I'm not seeing many people saying these are 100% real, fact.

It also seems to me an odd way of passing time, to jump into threads that are discussing the potential of these 'possibly' accurate rules and in effect sit there crying 'nah nah nah, its not happening, its not real' over and over, seems a waste of everyones time.

Oddly there where some folks with a similar reaction to the early rumours of 8th Fantasy, and that turned out to be more fact than fiction in the end. Will be interesting to see if 6th plays out the same way.

So, yes, this is pretty much 50-50 fake/real atm, but I really don't see why there should be any harm in discussing it in case they are accurate. Hell folks discuss compleately 100% made up rules over in the corresponding forums and no one goes mental over it.

Perhaps those who are having 'issues' with this being fake, should start a.. 'who agrees the leaked 6th PDF is fake' thread?

Grey Templar wrote:We have been told its a leaked PDF of the 6th edition rules.

Who told you?

DarknessEternal wrote:

Grey Templar wrote:We have been told its a leaked PDF of the 6th edition rules.

Who told you?

No one has... In fact, even the OP said it wasn't a leaked copy of 6th edition.

Fake, real, does it matter? Nobody knows for sure. The sheer number of threads that have opened up because of it shows just how much people want to discuss the idea of a new set of rules.

Even it is fake, I'm sure GW has seen it by now. Perhaps they'll look through it, see what's good in there and maybe incorporate them into the new edition.

Real maybe? I remember a PDF of the 5th edition rules being leaked. There was the same crap going around then as there is now...is it real? is it fake? OMFG the sky is falling!?!?! The leaked 5th PDF was about 90% correct, looked and formatted about the same way.

So, to keep this post on topic, I'm loving a lot of what I see. Parking-lot mech lists have been nerfed. Weird imbalances between psykers are gone. A melta gun isn't the no-brainer it was before, as Plasma guns have gotten a significant boost. Blast weapons as well have been helped. Multi-wound model squads are better. The stupid Paladin/Nob-Biker wound allocation squads are nerfed, hard. Wound allocation itself has been cleaned up. AV14 can be glanced to death now. Tactically retreating from the battle is here now. The list goes on and on...

Got an upcoming tourney I'm prepping for...after it, my gaming group will be moving to this PDF for some playtesting. Personally, I'm really looking forward to it.

I'm vaguely surprised about the new turn order- I assumed that, since shooting in 40k is much more important than in Fantasy, there'd be more need to keep people shootable.

It's really difficult to work out what is going to be what since it's not validated and is likely to be a play test version so will undergo some changes. I also get the feeling that we are missing some important info regarding existing units. The leaked FAQs don't do nearly enough to bring units up to date - there are so many new USRs that need to be applied to units and wargear that aren't covered in the rulebook leak or the FAQ leaks.

That being said, GK have been nerfed for sure but there are 3 major questions for me coming out of the 6th ed leak with respect to GK:

Unit sizes - are MSU going to still be viable? Personally, I think bigger units will become more important.

NFW - the storm bolter's 'assault weapon' status gives +1 attack with another CCW so taking swords should grant an extra attack and taking falchions should give 2 extra attacks. In this light - how do you now arm a GK squad, especially since assaulting a unit locked in combat will see you hitting at initiative 10.

Unit types - with the shooting phase now coming after assault, would it be better to specialise units more? Rather than making each unit a jack of all trades, is it going to be better to make units up with just storm bolters and NFW and other units with more psycannons (purgation squads?). Also, squads designed to receive an assault like all halberds and those designed to 'alpha strike' assault armed all with falchions - imagine Purifiers armed with falchions alpha striking at I10 with 5 attacks each?!?

Finally my last point makes me think that GW will FAQ the storm bolters working with any NFW to grant bonus attacks which will be a shame since they don't benefit from the power weapons giving the +5 invul save either (probably).

If these are the new rules...

I'll be selling my armies cheap and may actually start playing Warmahordes.

The thunder fire cannon has a weapon skill due to the crew are counters not models, if the artillery is assulted the the crew still fight back with the weapon skill, but only the cannon is a model for game purposes. crew are removed when the gun takes a pen or glance, if you run out of bodies/counters, gun dies

DarbNilbirts wrote:The thunder fire cannon has a weapon skill due to the crew are counters not models, if the artillery is assulted the the crew still fight back with the weapon skill, but only the cannon is a model for game purposes. crew are removed when the gun takes a pen or glance, if you run out of bodies/counters, gun dies

So the crew's weapon skill is 0?
I'm all for discussing hypothetical rules but these are just farsical. Open a page at random and you'll see something rediculous and convoluted.

DeffDred wrote:If these are the new rules...

I'll be selling my armies cheap and may actually start playing Warmahordes.

PM me if you do that. I think an Ork list will be a lot of fun with these new rules.



Speaking as a Necron player, I see the ability to alpha strike to be excellent, considering Necrons have some good tar pits, and a few brutal units that desperately need the Initiative boost.

However, I'm really looking forward to the Monoliths being the unkillable bastion of power that they once were.